The deepest view ever obtained of Centaurus A

This view is likely the deepest image ever taken with amateur equipment, showing stars as faint as magnitude 25.45, and the result of this long
exposure is better than what any professional astronomer have done so far on Centaurus A:

This image is the realisation of a long time dream of mine: Taking a deep sky image with more than 100 hours of exposure.

I set out on this mission in early 2013 and after having gathered 120 hours of data on 43 different nights in Feb-May 2013 I present what I believe is
the deepest view ever obtained of Centaurus A.

I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen before
- with all the main features showing in one single image, in order to truly get a grasp of what this intriguing object is all about.

Visible are some unique features, some of which have never been imaged before by amateurs:

- A set of enormous reddish filaments associated with the relativistic jets.
- The complete shell structure of the extended halo, showing both the faint outer shells and brighter inner ones.
- 709 of the catalogued globular clusters orbiting the galaxy.
- Integrated Flux Nebulae permeating the entire field of view around the galaxy.

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Forgive my ignorance, these images are beautiful.

But are they just an artists representation based on the data gathered or are
they actually true images ?

I ask because:

I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen
before

edit on 11-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: added quote

Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I
have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I
have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.

Thankyou for clearing that up.
I am concerned that people walk away from seeing these types of images with certain notions
of their place in the universe. If the images are based on artist representation, then
those beliefs are just that, beliefs.

Still, I can appreciate the artistic value of these images and I could look at them all day, they are stunning.

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Forgive my ignorance, these images are beautiful.

But are they just an artists representation based on the data gathered or are
they actually true images ?

I ask because:

I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen
before

edit on 11-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: added quote

Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I
have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.

This is a real visible light image, not an artists representation. The information as to how this was made is included in the OP and the OP's links.

The reason the photographer had to "compile" the image is that it was taken over a span of 43 nights (one night at a time), AND he used an LRGP
technique. LRGP stands for "Luminance, Red, Green and Blue". The red green and blue colors are real, but using color photography alone does not let
you get enough brightness or light and dark contrast. Therefore, a black-and-white image is used to get the brightness in the image, then the red,
green, and blue color image is overlaid on top of it. So, obviously there word be some "post-production" work required to compile this real image.

Granted, brightness levels, contrast, and color saturation levels could be manipulated, and even the exposure time will allow more things to be
visible than normal, but the photographer pointed out that he tried to achieve a realistic look.

The bottom line is that all of the images used to create this image are real photographs that used visible light.

edit on 6/11/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I
have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.

Thankyou for clearing that up.
I am concerned that people walk away from seeing these types of images with certain notions
of their place in the universe. If the images are based on artist representation, then
those beliefs are just that, beliefs.

Still, I can appreciate the artistic value of these images and I could look at them all day, they are stunning.

It's unfortunate that some people give you an answer like that, and you consider the situation "cleared up". The answer is wrong.

Those are photographs, images taken using visible light. The colours you see are real (even though they might be enhanced in saturation). It's very
much like pictures taken with regular cameras, except astronomers use separate colour filters (usually red, green and blue) to make a colour
composite, and obviously use very long exposures, sometimes hours - sometimes even days. Due to these factors, the final image is a product of
stacking and post-processing in order to get decent contrast, saturation, and other parameters. I can sympathise with being a bit suspicious of all
the computer wizadry involved, but I understand if due to the very dim light and optical/technological constraits, they need to do heavy
post-processing to make nice-looking images.

Bottom line - those are real images, not just an artistic interpretation. It's not like every amateur astronomer that decides to take up
astrophotography is automatically brainwashed into making the "fake" images. They take a telescope equipped with a camera, take pictures, learn to
improve their techniques, experiment with stacking and processingt, etc. (I've never done it myself, I hear it's a very expensive hobby and just
suck out all of your time)

Originally posted by wildespace
It's unfortunate that some people give you an answer like that, and you consider the situation "cleared up". The answer is wrong.

Those are photographs, images taken using visible light. The colours you see are real (even though they might be enhanced in saturation). It's very
much like pictures taken with regular cameras, except astronomers use separate colour filters (usually red, green and blue) to make a colour
composite, and obviously use very long exposures, sometimes hours - sometimes even days. Due to these factors, the final image is a product of
stacking and post-processing in order to get decent contrast, saturation, and other parameters. I can sympathise with being a bit suspicious of all
the computer wizadry involved, but I understand if due to the very dim light and optical/technological constraits, they need to do heavy
post-processing to make nice-looking images.

Bottom line - those are real images, not just an artistic interpretation. It's not like every amateur astronomer that decides to take up
astrophotography is automatically brainwashed into making the "fake" images. They take a telescope equipped with a camera, take pictures, learn to
improve their techniques, experiment with stacking and processingt, etc. (I've never done it myself, I hear it's a very expensive hobby and just
suck out all of your time)

Artist impressions and extensive post processing lead to an unatural result.
Lets take it out of context and into the world of music creation.
In the studio you can take a voice of a dull singer and use post processing to make
them seem more exciting and vibrant. Which is fine until they perform on stage.

That is not to take away from the expertise required to create these images.
Its certainly not a set of skills I possess.

Originally posted by wildespace
It's unfortunate that some people give you an answer like that, and you consider the situation "cleared up". The answer is wrong.

Those are photographs, images taken using visible light. The colours you see are real (even though they might be enhanced in saturation). It's very
much like pictures taken with regular cameras, except astronomers use separate colour filters (usually red, green and blue) to make a colour
composite, and obviously use very long exposures, sometimes hours - sometimes even days. Due to these factors, the final image is a product of
stacking and post-processing in order to get decent contrast, saturation, and other parameters. I can sympathise with being a bit suspicious of all
the computer wizadry involved, but I understand if due to the very dim light and optical/technological constraits, they need to do heavy
post-processing to make nice-looking images.

Bottom line - those are real images, not just an artistic interpretation. It's not like every amateur astronomer that decides to take up
astrophotography is automatically brainwashed into making the "fake" images. They take a telescope equipped with a camera, take pictures, learn to
improve their techniques, experiment with stacking and processingt, etc. (I've never done it myself, I hear it's a very expensive hobby and just
suck out all of your time)

Artist impressions and extensive post processing lead to an unatural result.
Lets take it out of context and into the world of music creation.
In the studio you can take a voice of a dull singer and use post processing to make
them seem more exciting and vibrant. Which is fine until they perform on stage.

That is not to take away from the expertise required to create these images.
Its certainly not a set of skills I possess.

That nature of a deep-field shot is that it is a long exposure that captures more light than your eye would capture. Therefore, more (dimmer/farther
away) objects would be seen that normally would not, and already-visible objects would be brighter and more vibrant.

However, the stuff we see in that image are really there, and the light we see is the real light.

It's saddening to realize that almost every star in that picture was probably dead by the time its light reached the photographer's lens. At least
we'll have something to remember them by.

Most of the individual stars in that image are in our own galaxy, and stars live far billions of years (much longer for red dwarf stars). Our galaxy
is "only" 100,000 LY (light years) across, and we are about one quarter of the way in from one edge, which means the farthest stars in our galaxy
from us are about 75,000 to 80,000 LY away. The light from even those stars farthest from us in our galaxy would only be 75,000 to 80,000 years old
-- a "blink of an eye" in stellar timescales.

The galaxy in that image (Centaurus A) is 10 to 15 million LY away -- which is much farther, but the light from that galaxy is still "only" 10-15
million years old -- still much, much younger than the lifespan of stars, and even pretty recen t in the timescale of the earth...

...Put it this way: Our sun was already middle-aged, and the dinosaurs were already long dead and the earliest human-like creatures were already
roaming around when the light left that galaxy 10 to15 million years ago.

While I find most of the images beautiful, I think some would be better if they would stop using the SAME flare filter on the bright stars. The images
are using a filter that interprets certain parts of the image into a flare that has an X type shape to it. Stars don't all shine like that and it
bothers my eyes when I see it since I "know" it isn't really there. It has been added to the image to enhance the brighter stars but it ends up
looking strange when three stars on the same image have the same flare. I have the same type of filter in my photoshop filter set.

When death occurs, there is also rebirth into new life. It's a all a cycle, and although death is upsetting - it is the start of something new.

Even I have to remind myself of this sometimes.

goodluck

edit on 11-6-2013 by ninepointfive because: spelling

In fact, we wouldn't be around if it wasn't for ancient stars that exploded a long time ago (before our Sun and solar system came into being). Our
Sun is thought to be a third generation star -- meaning there were probably two generations of other stars that lived and died in order to contribute
material to our Sun and solar system.

That 's because the heavy elements that make up our solar system (and the stuff the Sun was made from) were formed inside other stars -- and some were
formed during the explosion of a supernova. All of the iron on Earth, for example, including the iron in our bodies, was created in a supernova
explosion of another long-dead star. The pressures involved in a supernova is thought to be the only way the heavy elements were created. All of the
carbon on our bodies were made inside ancient stars.

The only elements that existed in the very young universe were the lightest -- hydrogen, helium, and lithium. The first stars used this early
hydrogen, and the heat and pressure in these stars fused to make heavier elements. When these stars died, those heavier elements became part of 2nd
generation stars, and the heat and pressure in those stars (including the pressure from the star's explosive death) created the even heavier elements
we have in our 3rd-generation solar system.

So, yeah -- our life comes from the death of stars. Plus, as Carl Sagan is famous for saying "We are made of star-stuff" -- and he
meant that literally.

edit on 6/11/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Absolutely beautiful! When i stared at it like I do with clouds, I see my dead Grandma after putting on her lipstick. NO OFFENSE TO YOU! I wish I
could have a photo-capable telescope. Excellent work my friend.

Originally posted by LordDerpingtonSmythe
Forgive my ignorance, these images are beautiful.

But are they just an artists representation based on the data gathered or are
they actually true images ?

I ask because:

I spent around 40 hours and analysing processing the data, with the goal of presenting this majestic Southern galaxy as it has never been seen
before

edit on 11-6-2013 by LordDerpingtonSmythe because: added quote

Yeah, thats what they are. And I wish they wouldnt.do that. Its dishonest. Ive seen a bunch of different galaxies and nebulae, but unfortunately, I
have no idea what any of them really look like beyond imagining what the image would look like if it were all white.

This is a real visible light image, not an artists representation. The information as to how this was made is included in the OP and the OP's links.

The reason the photographer had to "compile" the image is that it was taken over a span of 43 nights (one night at a time), AND he used an LRGP
technique. LRGP stands for "Luminance, Red, Green and Blue". The red green and blue colors are real, but using color photography alone does not
let you get enough brightness or light and dark contrast. Therefore, a black-and-white image is used to get the brightness in the image, then the red,
green, and blue color image is overlaid on top of it. So, obviously there word be some "post-production" work required to compile this real
image.

Granted, brightness levels, contrast, and color saturation levels could be manipulated, and even the exposure time will allow more things to be
visible than normal, but the photographer pointed out that he tried to achieve a realistic look.

The bottom line is that all of the images used to create this image are real photographs that used visible light.

edit on 6/11/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Oh. I always assumed the artist added colors of their own. Would you say all of these astronomical photos show real colors? Im glad you clarified
this for me.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.